Abstract

۱٫ Introduction

۲٫ Theory and hypotheses

۳٫ Methodology

۴٫ Results

۵٫ Discussion

۶٫ Conclusions

Acknowledgements

References

Abstract

     This study examines employee evaluations of HR practices (HRPs), which are a critical and yet underexplored antecedent of their effectiveness. Drawing on the Job Demands–Resources model, it proposes a moderated mediation model that studies the relationship between employee satisfaction with HRPs and in-role and extra-role performance as mediated by engagement. The results suggest satisfaction with HRPs influences both the performance dimensions considered, although its effects are greater for extra-role performance. Engagement intervenes significantly only in the relationship between this satisfaction and extra-role performance. Furthermore, the study acknowledges the burdens HRP-related resources may place on the workforce and examines the moderating effects of a personal resource such as health on the satisfaction with HRPs-engagement link, finding that it significantly strengthens it. It also finds that the indirect effect of satisfaction with HRPs on extra-role performance is stronger for healthier employees. These findings provide novel insights into the HR causal chain and help practitioners to better manage HRP design, communication, and audits.

Introduction

     Although HR practices (HRPs) have the potential to improve organisational performance by eliciting appropriate workforce contributions, research on the HR causal chain has stressed that employees’ evaluations of these practices may account for their effectiveness (Lepak et al., 2012; Wright & Nishii, 2013). Broadly defined, workforce evaluations of HRPs refer to the positive or negative subjective view held by employees of these practices (Beijer et al., 2019). Unfavourable evaluations may make HRPs unsuccessful as performance-enhancing tools, no matter how well they address organisational priorities (Meijerink et al., 2021).

      Despite the significance of workforce evaluations of HRPs, empirical research has documented the performance implications of only some such evaluations. Specifically, most existing studies have focused on HR attributions, namely employees’ assessment of management’s reasons for embracing HRPs (i.e., exploiting the workforce vs. enhancing its well-being) (e.g., Nishii et al., 2008). However, this is not the only kind of appraisal employees make of the HRPs they encounter. They can indeed examine them from multiple angles besides causal explanations for their adoption (Lepak et al., 2012), which implies that other relevant evaluations of HRPs affecting performance may exist (Van Beurden et al., 2021).

Conclusions

     As discussed by Liu et al. (2017), employees’ view of HRPs play a critical role in the process through which these practices become linked to performance, and hence “research examining the impact of an employee’s experience of HR systems on his or her outcomes is sorely needed” (p. 1165). This study has investigated whether, how, and when employee satisfaction with HRPs affects individual productive contributions. While there is undoubtedly a great deal of work yet to be done to fully explore workforce evaluations of HRPs and their related effects, we trust the findings here contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of such evaluations and inspire further research on the implications of satisfaction with HRPs.